Why does the fact that he might have floated the idea of having the building demolished alter the situation? You're behaving as though this is some
revelation, when in reality it's pretty unsurprising, and doesn't have much relevance to the "pull" quote.

Taking a wild stab in the dark though, I assume you're accusing me of being evasive. Which is ironic, given that you don't address my point.

I'll reiterate. The key assumption in this thread is that because "debunkers" have denied that the "pull" quote refers to demolishing the
building, the revelation that Silverstein considered demolishing the building is somehow a revelation. This is pretty poor stuff.

As has been pointed out already to you thedman, you do not call your insurance company to ask for permission to demolish your own
building.

You sure do if you want them to pay for it!

All the rest is just nonsense. "Pull It" has nothing to do with building demolition. Nothing.

Now if Mr. Silverstein had said "fire in the hole"! then you'd have a different case. But he didn't.

Silverstein knew that he would need to make a decision about the building, so as a responsible businessman he talked to the people who would be
financially liable for that decision. Whatever else they talked about I think he knew that the decision to pull the last remaining fire fighting unit
from the building may have impacted him and his relationship with the insurance carrier.

The FIRST thing I did when my skyscraper caught on fire was call up State Farm and ask "Is controlled demolition right for me?". Same with my father
and his father before him. Its like tradition, in fact.

In all seriousness, we spent 7 years listening to the same rhetoric about how there was no talk of controlled demolition, now the tune changes and the
defense is no longer "no one spoke of it". Instead it reverts to "CD couldnt be done in one day, what does it matter if the idea came up?".

What matters is lots of people spent years insisting it didn't. Now we know it did but the line has been drawn and people are unwilling to reconsider
things.

Originally posted by bsbray11
The original Fox article again:
.....................Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the
property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition
of the building [WTC7] – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.............

Please provide proof that :

A: Larry Silverstein was at Ground Zero on 911.

B: The names of the alleged Con-Edison workers that happen to be hangging around with Larry Silverstein that were listening in on the
alleged phone call.

C: Verification from the insurance company that Larry had this alleged conversation.

What you have here is a classic case of hearsay. I do understand though, with the TM on such a tail spin, you cling on to ANYTHING you can.

S-NWO-V: "Yes, it's going as planned. The paint on super duper thermite is getting ready to ignite the fuses for the hush-a-bombs!"

Larry: "excellent! Call me when after they collapse!"

S- NWO-V: "Will do Larry"

(a little less than one hour later)

S-NWO-V: "Larry, SNV again, did you check that out?" "We were able to collapse them both and indeed parts of the WTC hit WTC7 just like we planned.
This will start enough fires to get things rolling like you planned."

Larry: Okay great... I will be down in a little while to show my concern for the firefighters!

(undisclosed amount of time later at Ground Zero Larry is on the phone with Flo from Progressive Insurance)

Larry: "Hey Flo? Larry Silverstein here at WTC-7"

Flo from Progressive: "Hi Larry, how can I help you?"

Larry: "yeah, say, Flo, do I have controlled demolition on my coverage?"

Flo: As a matter of fact Larry, you just changed your coverage last week to our special C.D. x3 bonus plan.... Fire away big boy!

Originally posted by thedman
When informed by the FDNY that WTC 7 was being abandoned and left
to burn Silverstein had to consider his options - unlike rest of WTC
which were owned by Port Authority WTC 7 was owned outright by
Silverstein.

So what is first thing you do after accident or fire ?

CALL THE INSURANCE COMPANY!

Have a adjuster show up to assess damage and determine course of action

Ummmm...how often do you call the insurance company DURING the incident? Would that be for the purpose of reporting what you THINK the damage WILL BE?
Do you think the adjusters run on down and go inside burning buildings? Would the insurance company want to get right in there before it finishes
burning to see what might be damaged?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Why does the fact that he might have floated the idea of having the building demolished alter the situation? You're behaving as though this is some
revelation, when in reality it's pretty unsurprising, and doesn't have much relevance to the "pull" quote.

It's "unsurprising"? Man, I know you would have been one of the people saying "there is no evidence he ever meant to demolish the
building, blah blah blah blah." You change your tune with whatever direction the wind is blowing. Keep following the herd, right over that cliff.
That's one hell of a 'floating idea' if so many people on the ground were expecting it as well.

Can you show us ONE, just one picture from the collapse of building 7 that even remotely resembles any part of that recreation?

You mean the part that bsbray has cried about?

No, since, as I noted, this is a figure of what 7's collapse would have looked like if there hadn't been any damage from 1's collapse.

7 did in fact sustain damage from 1's collapse, and as plainly noted in the final report, section 4.5 was a study done to try and find out if the
building would have collapsed without the damage and what it would have looked like.

The rational realize that therefore, it shouldn't have looked like that at all, but like in figures 4-43 to 4-63. And it did.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.